Look at the F-22 Raptor we got 145 of them at almost $150 million per plane. Obama and Gates smartly discontinued it. We still have the F-35 coming. I know the Russians have the Sukhoi PAK FA coming, but they can't produce nearly the number of the 4th Gen Fighter as we did with the Raptor. Give me the F-18 and i'll shit all over any Airforce in the world.

Then you got the XM-8 which was supposed to replace the M-16 and the M-4, they spent tens of millions of dollars only to scrap it because the polymer was MELTING.

The F-35 is going to replace our aging Harrier fleet and also contains stealth technology. I got a buddy who is working with the engineers to write the training manual for Marine pilots. Dude has done 4 combat tours in the Harrier, leads a combat squadron, and just got done bombing poppy fields in Afghanistan. Even he agrees its time to replace the Harrier. Although the upgrades have helped, its still a dangerous aircraft to fly.

“Baseball is like church. Many attend but few understand.”- Wes Westrum

"The future is like a Japanese game show, we have no idea whats going on." - Tracy Jordan

"Gentlemen, Chicolini here may talk like an idiot and look like an idiot, but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot."-Rufus T. Firefly

The F-35 is going to replace our aging Harrier fleet and also contains stealth technology. I got a buddy who is working with the engineers to write the training manual for Marine pilots. Dude has done 4 combat tours in the Harrier, leads a combat squadron, and just got done bombing poppy fields in Afghanistan. Even he agrees its time to replace the Harrier. Although the upgrades have helped, its still a dangerous aircraft to fly.

The Harrier is a Marine Killer. The VTOL is nice and it was ahead of it's time, but the jet was too dangerous. What real advantage did it have over other carrier based aircraft? VTOL and that was a crapshoot. I read somewhere that you can build 3 F-35s for the cost of one Raptor. They throw so much money away on stupid projects, The AICBM Laser Plane? We really needed to waste billions of dollars on a plane with a laser in it's nose to shoot down ICBMs? The Osprey? 30 people have died test flying that piece of shit. This is the kinda shit Eisenhower warned us about.

I'm disappointed in Obama. I expected him to be more aggressive in his cuts (or reorganization of) the military. I really thought (hoped) we would be out of wars within 18 months and use our military to help defend our borders instead.

It's maddening the money that is spent on military and then cutting the Constellation program (3 billion/yr over 10 years) or cutting spending in the Army Corp of Engineers are wiser cost cuts, instead.

The big number seems to be that "operation and maintenance" figure in defense spending, which I assume is largely taken up by Afghanistan and Iraq. I'd also question whether it is optimistic to project that spending on unemployment insurance will be half in 2011 than in 2010. Same for a $30 billion reduction in state Medicaid payment; does that assume a transfer of some Medicaid recipients to a post-HCR private exchange plan?

There is probably some cutting that can be done in the smaller boxes in the lower-right hand corner, but real deficit control can only be accomplished through economic growth (higher tax receipts and reduced welfare payments), reduced defense spending and entitlement reform. The "hide mandatory spending" button is an interesting illustration.

boilerdaveb wrote:Umm...way to much on defense? uhhh...how bout way to much on entitlements...1.617 trillion! Good God...yeah...that can't last.

It's getting scarry. Children born today have a 50-50 sot at living to 100 per this week's Time mag. The 65 retirement age has got to go up to at least 70, and we need some form of means testing. The Ponzi scheme strated in the 1930's is gonna impload.

But in short this is great info. For all the retards yelling about earmarking and pork, this really brings it home.

It's defense and entitlements folks. The rest is a distraction. Like paprika.

You gonna pass on your entitlements and go "soft" on defense and the allow the US to ebb back from it's historic presence, or are you gonna pony up the scrilla?

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:They're all against entitlements.... till they need or get them.

No truer statement has ever been posted.

Gee how about keeping things in context fellas.

Entitlement is a poor term to use on this subject, but none the less entitlements as a means of a helping hand or to get somebody through a rough spell are fine, the vast majority of people are OK with them as long as there are built in limitations. They were created to lend a helping hand, not to live on for any amount of extended period. It is when those entitlements become the driving force behind somebody's life when the rest of society has a problem. If we are to be true to the entire ideal of personal responsibility that helped build this country then we must be against these moderate to long term entitlement programs and we must demand accountability on the part of the system and the individual.

These programs becomes viral and breed laziness and a nothing short of a where's mine attitude.

I'll never forget going to UPS looking for part time work in my early 20's. They had a video playing in a room full of applicants, showing all sorts of various employees at their jobs, asking them about the job etc. Every single one of the employees in the video commented on how physically demanding the job can be, and how at certain times of the year the schedule can be a bitch. Some even mentioned how much work it was for part time money....you've never seen a room clear out so quickly as you did at that instant. Pure genius on UPS' part, they just weeded out over 50% of the crappy applicants without wasting a single minute of their time.

That is the same attitude we are dealing with when talking about what long term entitlements can do. Why would somebody want to get a job and make essentially the same amount of money they are getting while sitting at home and doing nothing.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:They're all against entitlements.... till they need or get them.

Hasn't this line of reasoning been debated to death... They're all against defense spending... till they need to be defended.

Non-starter...

lol. We're the most powerful military in the world, and it's not even close.

What purpose does a laser plane that has a 50% failure rate serve, other than to cost tax payers billions of dollars? I'm not against defense spending, just spend it on smart shit. Alot of these projects are nothing more than money pits.

And FTR i'm not against cutting entitlements, just make sure you do it right. I've outlined how i'd reform welfare. Now tell me what cuts you think should be made and where and i'm sure we'll have alot of common ground.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:They're all against entitlements.... till they need or get them.

No truer statement has ever been posted.

Gee how about keeping things in context fellas.

Entitlement is a poor term to use on this subject, but none the less entitlements as a means of a helping hand or to get somebody through a rough spell are fine, the vast majority of people are OK with them as long as there are built in limitations. They were created to lend a helping hand, not to live on for any amount of extended period. It is when those entitlements become the driving force behind somebody's life when the rest of society has a problem. If we are to be true to the entire ideal of personal responsibility that helped build this country then we must be against these moderate to long term entitlement programs and we must demand accountability on the part of the system and the individual.

These programs becomes viral and breed laziness and a nothing short of a where's mine attitude.

I'll never forget going to UPS looking for part time work in my early 20's. They had a video playing in a room full of applicants, showing all sorts of various employees at their jobs, asking them about the job etc. Every single one of the employees in the video commented on how physically demanding the job can be, and how at certain times of the year the schedule can be a bitch. Some even mentioned how much work it was for part time money....you've never seen a room clear out so quickly as you did at that instant. Pure genius on UPS' part, they just weeded out over 50% of the crappy applicants without wasting a single minute of their time.

That is the same attitude we are dealing with when talking about what long term entitlements can do. Why would somebody want to get a job and make essentially the same amount of money they are getting while sitting at home and doing nothing.

So, umm, you want your SS and meical care when you 70 or you want to be done paying so much in taxes.

I know, that bouncing ball and following it is a bitch when you can do another welfare queen story.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:They're all against entitlements.... till they need or get them.

No truer statement has ever been posted.

Gee how about keeping things in context fellas.

Entitlement is a poor term to use on this subject, but none the less entitlements as a means of a helping hand or to get somebody through a rough spell are fine, the vast majority of people are OK with them as long as there are built in limitations. They were created to lend a helping hand, not to live on for any amount of extended period. It is when those entitlements become the driving force behind somebody's life when the rest of society has a problem. If we are to be true to the entire ideal of personal responsibility that helped build this country then we must be against these moderate to long term entitlement programs and we must demand accountability on the part of the system and the individual.

These programs becomes viral and breed laziness and a nothing short of a where's mine attitude.

I'll never forget going to UPS looking for part time work in my early 20's. They had a video playing in a room full of applicants, showing all sorts of various employees at their jobs, asking them about the job etc. Every single one of the employees in the video commented on how physically demanding the job can be, and how at certain times of the year the schedule can be a bitch. Some even mentioned how much work it was for part time money....you've never seen a room clear out so quickly as you did at that instant. Pure genius on UPS' part, they just weeded out over 50% of the crappy applicants without wasting a single minute of their time.

That is the same attitude we are dealing with when talking about what long term entitlements can do. Why would somebody want to get a job and make essentially the same amount of money they are getting while sitting at home and doing nothing.

So, umm, you want your SS and meical care when you 70 or you want to be done paying so much in taxes.

I know, that bouncing ball and following it is a bitch when you can do another welfare queen story.

That is exactly the point, I not only don't need it, I don't want it. So why are these programs still in place for the long haul. Are you DODGING the issue or are you SPINNING it. You cannot have it both ways JB, you cannot be of the people and scream personal responsibility & at the same time laugh b/c some people use the system to get through rough spots, in which that same system was created to do so.

That's the problem with the apologist angle, there is no turning back, there is no rational response to why an entitlement is such a positive POV. It always comes back to an excuse of some sort relieving an individual of anywhere close to full responsibility for their actions.

I want you to explain how a hand out has had a long term positive impact on society, using real data, not some concocted diatribe that relieves one group of personal accountability in comparison to another group's personal accountability.

Recognize.

Recognize, that when you step up to the plate to protect those that supposedly cannot, you not only insult those who can, you taketh from those who can to giveth to those who cannot. It is one thing to do so in such a manner as to ask, it is a different manner in which you do not ask but you simply taketh.

A guy lost his job, OK fine. Sucks for everybody, more so him than me. But for that guy to be allowed to suck off the system at his leisure is 100% complete BS. You seem to be against anybody not using the system, yet completely against anybody using the system for the exact purpose it was created for. I know you well enough through these boards to assume I am misreading something, if not I call complete BS.

Explain.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:They're all against entitlements.... till they need or get them.

Hasn't this line of reasoning been debated to death... They're all against defense spending... till they need to be defended.

Non-starter...

lol. We're the most powerful military in the world, and it's not even close.

What purpose does a laser plane that has a 50% failure rate serve, other than to cost tax payers billions of dollars? I'm not against defense spending, just spend it on smart shit. Alot of these projects are nothing more than money pits.

And FTR i'm not against cutting entitlements, just make sure you do it right. I've outlined how i'd reform welfare. Now tell me what cuts you think should be made and where and i'm sure we'll have alot of common ground.

CDT we are on the same page, quoted you but the last part was directed more towards the really zany libs... Real spending cuts only work when everything is on the table, no sacred cows...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:They're all against entitlements.... till they need or get them.

Hasn't this line of reasoning been debated to death... They're all against defense spending... till they need to be defended.

Non-starter...

Starter and finisher. The non-starter is the retarded pro-war lines of tired distortion.

Seriously OJ, who the fuck is invading tomorrow?

Who?

All about protecting special / corporate interests overseas. Period. I pay the majority of my taxes to piss off the crazy muslims.

They don't want to make me bow to a minneret. They want to make all their own people bow to minnerets and get us the fuck out. End of agenda. So let's get some damn electric cars and oblige them.

JB give me a freaking break. I don't know how many times we have to go over this same stupid crap. You spout off an "all or nothing" in terms of entitlements and I counter with the fact many libs, perhaps not you or CDT, see defense spending the same way.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM CUTTING DEFENSE WASTE!

We have to stop with the pure partisan sacred cow bullshit. I'm all for increasing the age, income cap, and means testing to keep SS viable. Ending SS right now just to say I am against entitlements would be catastrophic. If you want to do the above and slowly, very slowly over a generation or two eliminate the program I have no problem with that, and believe it would be the proper and rational way to eliminate such a program.

CDT already pointed out some defense programs that need the axe. I have no problem cutting ANY FAT. Look at the graph again, its funny how little we spend on infastructure. While defense is 700+ billion, transfer payments dwarf that figure...

Bush sucked...Obama sucks...Am I evenhanded yet?

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:What purpose does a laser plane that has a 50% failure rate serve, other than to cost tax payers billions of dollars?

A lot of technology is developed and refined on projects that go belly up. Not excusing the waste, just answering your question. Do you think they built the Earthquake Machine on purpose? Hell no, it was the bastard child of the Wave Machine they built for the officer's water park.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:They're all against entitlements.... till they need or get them.

Hasn't this line of reasoning been debated to death... They're all against defense spending... till they need to be defended.

Non-starter...

Starter and finisher. The non-starter is the retarded pro-war lines of tired distortion.

Seriously OJ, who the fuck is invading tomorrow?

Who?

All about protecting special / corporate interests overseas. Period. I pay the majority of my taxes to piss off the crazy muslims.

They don't want to make me bow to a minneret. They want to make all their own people bow to minnerets and get us the fuck out. End of agenda. So let's get some damn electric cars and oblige them.

JB give me a freaking break. I don't know how many times we have to go over this same stupid crap. You spout off an "all or nothing" in terms of entitlements and I counter with the fact many libs, perhaps not you or CDT, see defense spending the same way.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM CUTTING DEFENSE WASTE!

We have to stop with the pure partisan sacred cow bullshit. I'm all for increasing the age, income cap, and means testing to keep SS viable. Ending SS right now just to say I am against entitlements would be catastrophic. If you want to do the above and slowly, very slowly over a generation or two eliminate the program I have no problem with that, and believe it would be the proper and rational way to eliminate such a program.

CDT already pointed out some defense programs that need the axe. I have no problem cutting ANY FAT. Look at the graph again, its funny how little we spend on infastructure. While defense is 700+ billion, transfer payments dwarf that figure...

Bush sucked...Obama sucks...Am I evenhanded yet?

Bush inherited a great situation and sucked. Worst POTUS ever,

Obama inherited a disaster and has rendered a slightly better mess, still struggling by being too timid and kow towing to political enemies for Godknowwhat reason. I am profoundly disappointed that a single troop is still in Iran and the Afgan boondoggle quagmaire continues while the stimulus was a joke and heath care langusihes..

Night and day.

So ...... Evenhanded? Not even close. You are still far from center with this take.

There is no doubt in my mind I am far closer to the center then you ever have been on this issue. Even though you "let go" going after Ziner on the entitlement issue you cannot help but unleash the histrionics on us at every opportunity...

I know this is a huge image but since you wanna keep it real simple saying Bush inherited good and handed Obama a mess...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

People who attribute godlike powers to the president in terms of the economy and stock market tend to be the same people who think everything would be better if only their guy was in charge. In reality, the economy and stock market do best when government gets the hell out of the way. Sort of like what Clinton did, and Bush and Obama did not.

Orenthal, what is that chart supposed to demonstrate on your end? That Obama took office while the DJIA was finishing a plunge in value of nearly 50%? Or that the bottom of the DJIA during W's term didn't occur until he had already been in office for over a year and half?

I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime

jfiling wrote:People who attribute godlike powers to the president in terms of the economy and stock market tend to be the same people who think everything would be better if only their guy was in charge. In reality, the economy and stock market do best when government gets the hell out of the way. Sort of like what Clinton did, and Bush and Obama did not.

+The largest number possible...

To answer aoxo1My only point with the chart was that while Bush came into office with the DOW pumping it really was at its top, with the fall already cooked into the fundementals. Saying that he blew it is giving those godlike powers to the president. The same happened to Obama, but to say that both should be 100% on Bush is well, not very close to the center or rational.

...and further it is too easy to blame the entire thing on the president. By no means do I put 100% of anything going on right now on Obama. I continue to proclaim that the only way out of this mess is some massive spending cuts and corrections in the 80+ year behavior pattern we have been on...

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

FUDU wrote:I'm still waiting for JB to make a reasonable argument backing up his entitlement take.

You cannot have it both ways JB, you cannot be of the people and scream personal responsibility & at the same time laugh b/c some people use the system to get through rough spots, in which that same system was created to do so.

I don't laugh at people who have to use the system to get through rough times. In fact, I fall down on my GD knees and thank the Lord for being so blessed. I also hope like hell it is there for me should I ever need it, and I vote accordingly. I vote accordingly as I know that I am my brother's keeper and there but for God's grace go I. I am humble enought to know that and embrace that belief. At the same time, I know that taking responsibility so I don't have to scrape by and lead a life that sucks is the best deal I can offer myself. It isn't fun to live in a crappy place in a shitty part of town and survive on food stamps.

What I laugh at, and always will, are those who use the system and then bitch to high heaven about paying for it and the policies that keep in in place as they fall in leauge with those who would have destroying it so it wouldn't have been there when they themselves needed it. The second the stone stops rolling they revert to a "fuck 'em" philosophy. Capice?

Teabaggers over 65 on medicare and SS . "Conervatives" who have benefitted from big government programs. GOP poles who rail against spending and block the POTUS as obstructionisits and then pose for photo ops from stumulus projects. I laugh at them all.

I'd laugh at the major banks for doing that too, but it really isn't funny becasue it is so scarry. And now they are above reform.

I know I went Faulkner on that first sentance, but let me know if you still have questions.

Last edited by jb on Tue Feb 16, 2010 10:47 am, edited 3 times in total.

Orenthal wrote:...and further it is too easy to blame the entire thing on the president. By no means do I put 100% of anything going on right now on Obama. I continue to proclaim that the only way out of this mess is some massive spending cuts and corrections in the 30 year behavior pattern we have been on...

While I give you a great big + 1 OJ, I did needto make a correction to do so.

Spedning at income level ain't a bad thing.

Spending on credit with no intention of ever paying it off is. That strated in 1980 as a government lifestyle, abated in the late 90's, and is now on the high way to hell.

Has nothing to do with FDR suggesting the elderly shouldn't strave to death.

I don't laugh at people who have to use the system to get through rough times. In fact, I fall down on my GD knees and thank the Lord for being so blessed. I also hope like hell it is there for me should I ever need it, and I vote accordingly. I vote accordingly as I know that I am my brother's keeper and there but for God's grace go I. I am humble enought to know that and embrace that belief. At the same time, I know that taking responsibility so I don't have to scrape by and lead a life that sucks is the best deal I can offer myself. It isn't fun to live in a crappy place in a shitty part of town and survive on food stamps.

Here we will agree again, but I would add the slight spin that most Democrat politicians see increasing entitlements as an easy way to get votes. To the point they could care less about the system being a fix for, brief, rough times. There is a certain strain on the economy as a whole when you run up debt (Defense spending too) like we have. All spending has to come down if we are ever going to normalize unemployment back to the 4-5% level...

Makes me sick to see another jobless recovery on the way, one that is starting to eat away at jobs that require 4+ years of college education. What is the new "normal" unemployment rate going to be?

Why in the fuk should people over 65 feel guilty about protecting and getting back their own F%$#@*&^%G money?

...aside from the labels and preconceived judgements you bestow upon them?

What a steaming pile of horseshit. The 45 and under crowd thinks they're the only ones who paid into THE SYSTEM or ever did a good deed for their fellow man? KMA

I've paid double % SS for 35 yrs....and now I'm supposed to just give it all up to some ignorant touchy-feely politician/community organizer, cuz some indignant, self righteous Ostrich thinks its fashionable?

What a 180 we've done as a country when protesting taxes/getting your money back from a corrupt out of control government, is now considered un-democratic, just a couple hundred years after the same actions birthed a nation...

Pray tell, other than bending over and greasing your own ass for some DC lawyer, what do you suggest?

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

Orenthal wrote:Here we will agree again, but I would add the slight spin that most Democrat politicians see increasing entitlements as an easy way to get votes. To the point they could care less about the system being a fix for, brief, rough times. There is a certain strain on the economy as a whole when you run up debt (Defense spending too) like we have. All spending has to come down if we are ever going to normalize unemployment back to the 4-5% level...

Except that spending, unfortunately, can't come down until the economy improves, because so much of it is tied up into the safety net. (Or the safety net is trimmed.)

BTW, I don't think it had been mentioned yet, but the link in the original post did not fully incorporate the effect of the stimulus plan and its effect on the deficit. Since a large portion (I think about half) of the stimulus was via tax cuts of one kind or another, the deficit-additive effect of the stimulus is not part of "government spending."

Orenthal wrote:Here we will agree again, but I would add the slight spin that most Democrat politicians see increasing entitlements as an easy way to get votes.

Dawg, the issue isn't spending per se. It is deficit spending. This is largely encompassed by the following choices made over an extended period:

- Lowering the progresive tax rate down without paying for it...

- Non-means tested entitlements that are ponzi schemes...

- Unpaid for wars...

That's the biggies. Ranting won't solve those. Action on them will. If medicare part D doesn't make the masses wake up to out of control spending as non-partisan, nothing will. The only reason the GOP has temporary deficit spending religeon is that they are out of power and they can dupe the teasheep into letting them hold the footbll again. We've seen how they have goverened. At least the dems don't lie or pretend.

Have you seen the Wasilla Community organizing Center, by the way?

Spending needs to come down. I agree on the drag you referenced. Clinton's team hammered that home. But cutting spending in an economy this sick is usually a death spiral, unfortunately.

Gotta make the hay when the sun shines. Not give away needless tax beaks to the top 1% and start wars you don't budget for, and enact massive government entitlement programs.

Last edited by jb on Tue Feb 16, 2010 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orenthal wrote:Here we will agree again, but I would add the slight spin that most Democrat politicians see increasing entitlements as an easy way to get votes. To the point they could care less about the system being a fix for, brief, rough times. There is a certain strain on the economy as a whole when you run up debt (Defense spending too) like we have. All spending has to come down if we are ever going to normalize unemployment back to the 4-5% level...

Except that spending, unfortunately, can't come down until the economy improves, because so much of it is tied up into the safety net. (Or the safety net is trimmed.)

BTW, I don't think it had been mentioned yet, but the link in the original post did not fully incorporate the effect of the stimulus plan and its effect on the deficit. Since a large portion (I think about half) of the stimulus was via tax cuts of one kind or another, the deficit-additive effect of the stimulus is not part of "government spending."

Cutting spending during a serious recession is an old tctic perfected by herbert Hoover.

The real screw up was not continuing to pay down the deficit and balance things when the economy wasn't in the tank and trying to artificially prop up te business cycle by supply-side voodoo economics.

Obama's mistakes have a common thread: he lets Congress have too much control over his aganda and is too passive and nebulous. IMhO the main problem with the stiumulus is that is wasn't strategically targeted enough and was watered down impact-wise as block grants to states to forstall the inevitable.

JB agree 100% that spending what you take in is far better then allowing debt to pile up at an alarming rate. I believe even better then that is to make such an equalibrium point as low as possible to prevent overwhelming government intervention.

On this one JB I think you are totally wrong.

Cutting spending during a serious recession is an old tctic perfected by herbert Hoover.

You corrected me sometime ago on one of my historical missteps. I admitted it, and on this one would expect the same. Hoover was not a cutter, he blazed the trail for FDR, and was the polar opposite of Coolidge. Coolidge hated Hoover, but blah blah heere is an article on the subject...

Also read in much more detail about the exact time period in the book, The Forgotten Man, but the author of that was already attacked when I brought it up in the book thread... I suppose the WSJ opinion piece may be attacked too, even though the author is from Bidness Week.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Fire Marshall Bill wrote:I've paid double % SS for 35 yrs....and now I'm supposed to just give it all up to some ignorant touchy-feely politician/community organizer, cuz some indignant, self righteous Ostrich thinks its fashionable?

Are you high broham? Obama is fixing to take yer socal security?

You got the parties' agandas mixed up.

Or not. Medicare part D shows both parties will break the treasury and world macro-economy to throw out another entitlement.

Really JB, at the end of the day what is the difference on the label we give the money we pay up to the government, it all means the same in the end, less money in our pockets. Whether it be federal income tax, or SS, we don't get our money's worth regardless. SS shouldn't be counted on as being there for a sole income down the road by anyone, but the bottom line is we are over taxed, period.

Both parties want our money, make no mistake about it.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Orenthal wrote:Here we will agree again, but I would add the slight spin that most Democrat politicians see increasing entitlements as an easy way to get votes. To the point they could care less about the system being a fix for, brief, rough times. There is a certain strain on the economy as a whole when you run up debt (Defense spending too) like we have. All spending has to come down if we are ever going to normalize unemployment back to the 4-5% level...

Except that spending, unfortunately, can't come down until the economy improves, because so much of it is tied up into the safety net. (Or the safety net is trimmed.)

BTW, I don't think it had been mentioned yet, but the link in the original post did not fully incorporate the effect of the stimulus plan and its effect on the deficit. Since a large portion (I think about half) of the stimulus was via tax cuts of one kind or another, the deficit-additive effect of the stimulus is not part of "government spending."

Cutting spending during a serious recession is an old tctic perfected by herbert Hoover.

I generally agree. You have to let the natural deficit occur during a recession: it's just a matter of fact that tax revenues will fall and safety net spending will increase. If you think it's necessary, I can even see the government feeling that it needs to provide additional relief to its citizens by further cutting taxes or doing things like extending unemployment benefits. According to Wiki, about $288B of the stimulus was tax relief, and $81B falls into "Protecting the Vulnerable" and $59B into Health Care. That's $428B, or about 54% of the $787B. Nevertheless, you have to seriously acknowledge that you are borrowing against future (presumably better) years. (That's why I think that Obama's plan to break the "deal" on the TARP money going back into the deficit is wong; not necessarily that providing assistance to community banks is a Bad Thing, but because it institutionalizes a form of government assistance program that was, by its own name, supposed to be Temporary.)

Even given all that, I don't think it necessarily follows that structural increases in spending will automatically Keynes the way out of the recession. After all, given that non-defense discretionary spending is just a fraction of government spending, it is an even smaller fraction of national GDP. The remaining $359B (more or less; e.g., some of what falls into "Health Care" might not be direct assistance) of stimulus falls into this category. Given how (relatively) small this amount is (and yes, billion here and billion there and eventually you're talking real money) especially in comparison to the economy as a whole, I think it was a mistake for the Democrats to try to sell the stimulus as being able to have a real effect on GDP or unemployment. After all, since you mention Hoover, it wasn't until WWII that the Depression ended.

The other thing is that the programs themselves are scattershot, and to be actually effective will require additional government spending. To borrow from another thread: $8B for high-speed rail seems reasonable, but it implies further spending of $40+B down the road. If high-speed rail is a legitimate program (and I think it is), it should stand or fall on its own merits, not as a part of a supposedly "one-time" stimulus plan.

The real screw up was not continuing to pay down the deficit and balance things when the economy wasn't in the tank and trying to artificially prop up te business cycle by supply-side voodoo economics.

100% agree. I'd also add in credit policies that encouraged the formation of a housing bubble, just a few years after the collapse of the tech bubble.

Obama's mistakes have a common thread: he lets Congress have too much control over his aganda and is too passive and nebulous. IMhO the main problem with the stiumulus is that is wasn't strategically targeted enough and was watered down impact-wise as block grants to states to forstall the inevitable.

I generally agree, with the caveats above. The irony is that Obama's deference to Congress constitutes a reasonable concession of executive power, even as the right was zeroing in on him as some sort of tyrant. And now his approval ratings our down. I guess the people want a king, but only if its their king.

One Other Thing: Given the central role of defense, entitlements, and interest in determining the national debt, you can understand why many are concerned about the creation of a new health care entitlement. (Not that the Republicans have a principled leg to stand on, what with the Medicare Part D debacle.)

F them all. Or at least bring back Clinton and Gingrich. (Not something I would've thought 12 years ago.)

Orenthal wrote:Here we will agree again, but I would add the slight spin that most Democrat politicians see increasing entitlements as an easy way to get votes. To the point they could care less about the system being a fix for, brief, rough times. There is a certain strain on the economy as a whole when you run up debt (Defense spending too) like we have. All spending has to come down if we are ever going to normalize unemployment back to the 4-5% level...

Except that spending, unfortunately, can't come down until the economy improves, because so much of it is tied up into the safety net. (Or the safety net is trimmed.)

BTW, I don't think it had been mentioned yet, but the link in the original post did not fully incorporate the effect of the stimulus plan and its effect on the deficit. Since a large portion (I think about half) of the stimulus was via tax cuts of one kind or another, the deficit-additive effect of the stimulus is not part of "government spending."

Cutting spending during a serious recession is an old tctic perfected by herbert Hoover.

I generally agree. You have to let the natural deficit occur during a recession: it's just a matter of fact that tax revenues will fall and safety net spending will increase. If you think it's necessary, I can even see the government feeling that it needs to provide additional relief to its citizens by further cutting taxes or doing things like extending unemployment benefits. According to Wiki, about $288B of the stimulus was tax relief, and $81B falls into "Protecting the Vulnerable" and $59B into Health Care. That's $428B, or about 54% of the $787B. Nevertheless, you have to seriously acknowledge that you are borrowing against future (presumably better) years. (That's why I think that Obama's plan to break the "deal" on the TARP money going back into the deficit is wong; not necessarily that providing assistance to community banks is a Bad Thing, but because it institutionalizes a form of government assistance program that was, by its own name, supposed to be Temporary.)

Even given all that, I don't think it necessarily follows that structural increases in spending will automatically Keynes the way out of the recession. After all, given that non-defense discretionary spending is just a fraction of government spending, it is an even smaller fraction of national GDP. The remaining $359B (more or less; e.g., some of what falls into "Health Care" might not be direct assistance) of stimulus falls into this category. Given how (relatively) small this amount is (and yes, billion here and billion there and eventually you're talking real money) especially in comparison to the economy as a whole, I think it was a mistake for the Democrats to try to sell the stimulus as being able to have a real effect on GDP or unemployment. After all, since you mention Hoover, it wasn't until WWII that the Depression ended.

The other thing is that the programs themselves are scattershot, and to be actually effective will require additional government spending. To borrow from another thread: $8B for high-speed rail seems reasonable, but it implies further spending of $40+B down the road. If high-speed rail is a legitimate program (and I think it is), it should stand or fall on its own merits, not as a part of a supposedly "one-time" stimulus plan.

The real screw up was not continuing to pay down the deficit and balance things when the economy wasn't in the tank and trying to artificially prop up te business cycle by supply-side voodoo economics.

100% agree. I'd also add in credit policies that encouraged the formation of a housing bubble, just a few years after the collapse of the tech bubble.

Obama's mistakes have a common thread: he lets Congress have too much control over his aganda and is too passive and nebulous. IMhO the main problem with the stiumulus is that is wasn't strategically targeted enough and was watered down impact-wise as block grants to states to forstall the inevitable.

I generally agree, with the caveats above. The irony is that Obama's deference to Congress constitutes a reasonable concession of executive power, even as the right was zeroing in on him as some sort of tyrant. And now his approval ratings our down. I guess the people want a king, but only if its their king.

One Other Thing: Given the central role of defense, entitlements, and interest in determining the national debt, you can understand why many are concerned about the creation of a new health care entitlement. (Not that the Republicans have a principled leg to stand on, what with the Medicare Part D debacle.)

F them all. Or at least bring back Clinton and Gingrich. (Not something I would've thought 12 years ago.)